Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In The Stands' started by LonghornCatholic, Nov 14, 2013.
Let me get this straight -- Ms. Kearney wants a million bucks after engaging in a long-term, secret, affair with a student on her team which only came to light because of the student reporting it
whereas, with Major, "It was a one-time occurrence and was a personal matter. Shortly after it occurred, I discussed the situation with [athletic director] DeLoss Dodds. I was up front and took full responsibility for my actions.
Big difference IMO. Self-reporting and taking full responsibility are the keys.
Hope she is ready for a brutal deposition about all of the gritty details. How many times, where, when, what acts , etc etc etc
I think Major should have been fired for it too. Maybe that's just me.
Some of the lawyers will know better but this has a low chance of making it to court depending on when and what party blinks first.
Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this suit, the speculation is that the matter is not settled because the Rick Perry regents did not want to approve the financial settlement behind the scenes-in order to embarrass UT.
...and to continue their war on UT President Powers.
Major should have lost his job as well, double standard for sure. Is Plonsky the other person mentioned?
Plonsky??? Please don't put those details on here.
Accuratehorn has it accurate.
Before you give an opinion on this case, you should read the in depth, lenghty Texas Monthly article on the Bev Kearney case. It presents her side and the student's side of the affair in great detail.
I don't believe you will call it equivalent to Major's situation if you read that article.
accurate horn -- gimme the reader's digest version or the cliff notes. Are you saying Kearney should or should not have been fired?
I heard she bought the student a car, among other things.
Haven't read the Texas Monthly piece though, so not sure.
Based on what I have read to date, I would not be afraid to litigate this case.
All that discovery is going to get ever more expensive for plaintiff's counsel.
Kearney to Applewhite is apples to watermelons.
Kearney's attorney has been threatening litigation and to go to the press with a bunch of other affairs for well over a year and Applewhite is the best they could divulge. If the student she had an affair with had not been on her directly coached team, just a random non athlete student, she'd probably still have a job.
Sorry, but I have read a LOT about this case and I'd litigate for the University in a heart beat. And yet, we would still have settled it to keep both sides from paying the legal fees and airing somewhat dirty laundry. That was vetoed to try to erode support for the current administration.
And it won't matter.
I agree completely with Orangeblood. While Applewhite's actions were clearly inappropriate, an ongoing intimate relationship between an athlete and her coach is not the same as a one night stand between a coach and trainer. The fact that Kearney and her attorneys are also playing the race card in all this just adds to the absurdity.
A little media attention can be a great thing if it leads to a positive result. Discovery in this case could be the most fun since Percy Foreman defended Melvin Lane Powers & Candy Mosler.
There is no case, but The University could achieve a very desirable goal that hasn't happened in some 25 years. There won't be enough Silver Oak in Texas to celebrate that victory.
I'm a little surprised to see some attempting to draw a distinction between Bev, and others who may have committed a similar offense. Though in fairness it appears quite a few feel Major should have suffered the same fate as Kearney. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about that, but it hardly seems relevant from a legal perspective. What does matter is the law, and it seems doubtful a court would allow such a distinction to be made. If you go down that path, and begin to parse individual circumstances, some might argue Bev's stature and history, and the fact her incident took place over a decade ago, should have worked in her favor. Or resulted in a lesser punishment than what was meted out to Major. Before anyone jumps in to argue the point, I'm not saying I agree. What I am saying is those types of judgments are highly personal, and everyone will view the situation differently. That is evident from the responses on this thread.
The best question to ask is what the rules actually are, or what the policy states with regard to inappropriate relationships. Does it say the consequences should be more serious if committed by a HC, as opposed to an assistant? Or that a professor who engages in a relationship with a student in a colleague's class will receive a lesser punishment than if the student is in his/her own class? Or that an administrator will face greater action than an athletic trainer? I think it's pretty obvious neither University policy, nor the law addresses these types of differences.
The questions a court will ask should be relatively straightforward. What was the rule? Was it broken? Has it been broken by anyone else? Did everyone who broke the rule receive the same punishment? And if not, how is one person who broke the rule different from any other person who did the same? Obviously this is why most organizations make such a concerted effort to apply policies and procedures evenly to everyone. White, black, brown, male, female, gay, straight, superior or subordinate; all employees who break a specific rule will face the same consequences for doing so.
The issue several have brought up about certain BOR appointees being responsible for this action moving forward, and their alleged motives for doing so, is the hardest for me to get my head around. This has been discussed on another HF forum, and I said there I find such an assertion very difficult to accept. It seems beyond belief than anyone who's job it is to look out for the best interests of the University would purposefully engage in behavior intended to harm the same. Perhaps I'm being naïve, and it does seem odd things have been allowed to progress to this point. Every institution has faced, and settled cases of this type at some point, for obvious reasons, so why that hasn't happened yet I don't know. But a BOR acting to embarrass the very University they are tasked with overseeing doesn't seem plausible. All I'll say is if there is any merit to this accusation, and the motives of those involved are even close to what some have suggested, then that is a far bigger story - and issue - than any relationship Bev, Major or anyone else is alleged to have had. That's why I find the assertion so unlikely; if true it would be so explosive no one would even care about, or report on the Kearney case any longer.
One facet being overlooked is that Bev's transgression also violated NCAA regs whereas no other incident they are alleging does so. I am in NO way advocating that what major and other may have done is ok (even Major would tell you it wasn't), but he did not have direct control (and job/grade power) over his (one night) partner. It would take an awfully sensitive juror (that should be easily struck) to hold the two incidents in the same level of violation. And I'm pretty sure that these cases are not a liability per se. They are usually measured in shades of grey based on a number of circumstances (the most damning of which is direct control).
" It seems beyond belief than anyone who's job it is to look out for the best interests of the University would purposefully engage in behavior intended to harm the same."
You apparently haven't been watching the House committee investigating Wallace Hall Jr.
sex with one of your own players vs sex with a student
c'mon people. this isn't the same conversation. there are people who have sex with employees in the same company, and there are people who are managers in the company having sex with their own subordinates. if we're talking about lawsuits...only one of those two situations puts the company at risk. now double the sensitivity since this player could not "transfer" to another department in the company.
in real life, they aren't even comparable.
"sex with a student"
From most accounts, it was a student trainer with access to the same football facilities that a player on the team would have. This wasn't some random Biology major. It was someone who worked in connection with the football program. Call it what you will because she wasn't a football player, but we all saw what happened when Cleve was doing his thing. That girl wasn't a football player either.
Wasn't Cleve's situation flat out sexual harassment rather than mutual sexual relationship?
Yes, but my point was that the person in question was relevant and connected to the football program. Just as a player on a sports team is relevant and connected to her program. I think the distinction between "player" and "trainer" is too muddled to begin having some conversation about who controls whom or whatever. And Bev would be smart to draw those types of comparisons in order to help her case.
Maybe she was training Major to be a player.
Don't listen to a plaintiff attorney ramblings. Major and Kearney's cases are totally different. Major broke the rules and immediately turned himself in as required by the rules. Texas found out about Kearney after the "student" love interest threatened the school with a suit many years after it happened.